August 10, 2007

The link is to a segment of a Bloggingheads episode that's worth watching in its entirety, in part because Bob and Mickey are such great diavloggers, but also because they talk about me... twice. The first time is a teaser for a Bloggingheads that I've recorded, but which hasn't gone up yet and which might cause a big sensation. The second time is in the last segment, where Mickey gives Bob a pop culture quiz, and one question is "Jessica or Nick?" and the only Jessica that Bob can think of is Jessica Valenti, whom Mickey can't identify until Bob prompts with my name, at which point -- I think -- Mickey gives me some light support.

ADDED: A link at "teaser for a Bloggingheads" and, from it, a new quote for the masthead.

Wasnt in Paglia that recently commented on the downside of this interminable campaign? The longer the public (OK, me) gets to look at the candidates, the easier it is to dissect their positions in detail. Obama seems to be pretty much an empty suit and has been outcampaign by HRC. And that doesnt include his "Pakistan solution." The longer the campaign lasts, the less attractive he has become and the initial hype wears off. The suit is looking emptier and emptier.

Roger said..."Wasn't it Paglia that recently commented on the downside of this interminable campaign? The longer the public ... gets to look at the candidates, the easier it is to dissect their positions in detail."

As a general matter, for the life of me, I'm struggling to understand how that could ever, in any imaginable circumstances, be a bad thing.

And more specifically, if the early campaign does nothing else this cycle beyond exposing Obama as a fraud, it's performed a valuable service.

Well thus far I have been very impressed with HRC's performance in campaigning thus far. I honestly didn't believe she could maintain a presidential campaign without melting down. Granted, we've a ways to go yet but absent any major gaffes, it looks like she has the nod so far.

Obama on the other hand is no big revelation. I have nothing at all against the man personally, I actually think he is a nice guy but in terms of presidential material, entirely out of his league.

Anyone think a Hillary/Richardson ticket would be unrealistic? Be a nice tie in to the Hispanic vote plus you have a VP who actually has a resume of accomplishments. I know New Mexico doesn't bring much to the electoral area but he would balance the ticket better than her and Obama IMHO.

If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she will be destroyed in an avalanche of attacks from the right. And her constant refrain of "vast right wing conspiracy" won't help her much. There's just no good answer to the question, "why did you stay with your husband after he cheated on you 50 or so times"?

"Obama's well above it, and would dominate any of the Republican candidates in the general."

Please.

The Emperor said..."If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she will be destroyed in an avalanche of attacks from the right. ... There's just no good answer to the question, 'why did you stay with your husband after he cheated on you 50 or so times'?"

Well, there is, just none available to her. She could say that she takes marriage seriously, that she don't believe in divorce and believes it really is "'til death do us part", and that she believes that people in a marriage should stay together and work it out. Which is credible if you're Sam Brownback, but would, of course, be absolutely laughable coming from Hillary Clinton. The problem isn't that there's no answer, it's that there's no answer that Hillary can credibly give, because the answers available won't be believed by the people who might sympathize with them (who won't vote for Hil anyway), and will earn howls from those who do support her, who are the last people who want to hear talk about the sanctity of marriage.

Simon--I would agree that a longer campaign could be a good thing if people would really spend some time analyzing positions and having detailed single issue debates. Unfortunately, I dont see that happening, and with emphasis on sound bites at six and 11, we will continue to bombarded with deadening fluff and gotchas. A traditional campaign should give anyone with 8th grade reading comprehension, enough time to make a decent choice--especially if we change to in-depth debates.

At the risk of being cynical, I fear you give both the public and the media that cover the campaigns too much credit for really wanting to "discuss the issues." Would it not be so.

Is it my imagination, or do I sense the democrats are somehow believing their candidate will be running against Bush-Cheney again? I bet ole Bob Schrum came up with it. I do sincerely hope they continue to stick with that strategy; we will find out a year November if the chose wisely or poorly.

rcocean said... "Once again, the Democrats instead of nominating someone who will reasonate with Middle America...."

Are you seriously suggesting that Obama would "resonate" with Middle America? To take his rhetoric seriously, this is a man who hasn't even grasped the basic nature of politics. He has failed to understand, on the most basic level, why divisive issues are divisive. He speaks of "moving past" the culture wars, as if fundamental disagreements over deeply-held beliefs can be just swept away. That makes him either patently disingenuous, or a complete moron. I think - I hope - the American people have a little more sense than to be taken in by this cheap hucksterism.

Roger said... "Is it my imagination, or do I sense the democrats are somehow believing their candidate will be running against Bush-Cheney again."

Oh, absolutely. Look at how the usual suspects here rail about how people are sick and tired of Bush, as if it naturally followed from that (truthful) point that the dems will prevail in '08. They either haven't grasped that Bush isn't re-running, or believe that America at large is stupid enough to conflate this administration with whomever the GOP candidate is. I'm skeptical of that.

Emperor, why would you conclude that Bloomberg's entry would seal the election for the GOP? I would have said that precisely the opposite was so.

She can then ask the questioner: If your spouse cheated, maybe even many times, what would you do? And she can reply to that answer: I chose differently.

That will work... if Republicans don't follow through. You see, Hillary's problem here is exactly that she did choose differently -- specifically, differently from how almost any other woman in America would react.

Put yourself in the average married woman's shoes. Your children are grown and out of the house. Your husband has been cheating on you for decades with a parade of younger women. Most recently, he got you to publicly humiliate yourself by denying he'd cheated. Do you stay with him? Absolutely NOT. Hell, tell that story on Oprah and the home audience would be cheering for you to leave the son of a bitch and take him for everything he's got. Only a very weak (or, if he's rich and powerful, greedy and/or power-hungry) woman would put up with that kind of bullshit.

Oh, sure, there are some woman who'll nod and say "yes, divorce is always bad, staying with the marriage is good". The problem is that those women are almost all conservative Christians, who aren't going to be pulling the lever for Hillary "abortion abortion, rah rah rah" Clinton anytime soon.

I don't think Hillary's Republican opponent will be foolish enough to openly question her intention of sticking with Bill. I think he'll let his wife bring it up, and let other Republicans handle a whispering campaign related to it. E.g., "can a woman who lets her husband walk all over her REALLY stand up for women?".

For the few people still on the fence about Hillary, her defense for sticking by Bill will be weak. Thus her ability to move up is limited. The election will be about whether the Republican nominee can do so. Not an easy task, but probably easier than convincing any of the sizable percentage of Americans with a negative Hillary view to vote for her.

why would you conclude that Bloomberg's entry would seal the election for the GOP? I just can't see Bloomberg taking many votes from, say, Giuliani. Bloomberg offers a nice alternative to Hillary for pro-business Democrats, and there are quite a few of those. But which Republicans would switch from Giuliani to Bloomberg? I can't think of many.

Did Obama ever really have a chance? Being black, making Harvard Law Review, and 2/3 of one term in the Senate is nice, but it's a nice start. He's a long way from being qualified.

And if he really and seriously wants ever to run and actually be elected to the office, then he needs to get out of the Senate and spend about 8 years as a governor, preferably of Illinois and not Hawaii. If he does that he'll then be nicely qualified.

I'd say or spend a term or two as Vice-President, but that won't work because I don't think Hillary can win it either.

There's just no good answer to the question, 'why did you stay with your husband after he cheated on you 50 or so times'?"

If you think such a question wouldn't redound in her favor, you know nothing about politics.

This would be like Edwards' attempt to bring up Cheney's daughter in their debate.

It would outrage Democrats and be used for fundraising and get-out-the-vote campaigns.

It would disgust independents.

And it would turn off Republican voters.

Hillary-haters and shock-jocks might get a kick out of ridiculing the Clinton's marriage.

But family-focused conservatives would find the whole thing distasteful. All Hillary has to say is, "I stand by my marriage vows" and her (right-wing) attackers would be the ones seemingly advocating divorce.

What Henry said--for the people who havent made up their mind about HRC, this is precisely the type of thing that will make her look sympathetic. There may not be many who havent formed an opinion, but that is the critical bloc.

Are we talking about the same Obama who is polling at 6.7% in Iowa? Oh did I forget to mention that its among Republican registered voters. And I also forgot to mention that he places 3rd among Republican only 2 points behind Guiliani and ahead of McCain, Fred Thompson and the rest of the field.

I'm sure in this crazy echo chamber, the mere fact that he's a Democrat disqualifies him from office (as well as the fact that he's black which seems to be an issue with some of the commentors here.) In the real world, Obama has a considerable amount of support. Will it be enough to overtake Hillary and her big establishment advantages, I don't know. But I wouldn't be counting him out in August of '07 because Kaus, whose greatest asset seems to be his nativist viewpoint on immigration, said so.

"There's just no good answer to the question, "why did you stay with your husband after he cheated on you 50 or so times"?"

There's just no way that she's going to be asked that question (in anything like those words). Any reporter who asks it is going to be ignored (or get a withering stare and a lecture on how to address serious presidential candidates). And if the republican nominee is Giuliani (or Romney, Thompson, or even Gingrich) the republicans are going to want to keep marital morals as far away from the public debate as possible.

Another candidate who asks that question is going to look foolish and/or desperate.

So that particular devestating question is a non-starter.

I think the right has already blown its wad on Hillary. They've been attacking her relentlessly for 15 years and haven't convinced many people (who didn't already hate her). They've called her a, communist, secret-lesbian, and a murderer. How do you escalate from that? Are there going to be books published now about how she kicks puppies?

On the other hand, to really get to her real weaknesses (which she certainly has) means you have take her seriously as a candidate (and distance yourself from the winger hate-brigade) which will (ironically) make her look better.

I don't know if Obama is over or not. I don't know if he's really started. I can't say for sure what his position on most (any?) issues are. All I know for sure is that a lot of people find him to be a riveting and charismatic speaker and he's made some missteps recently.

But mis-steps aren't the end of the world. All serious presidential candidates have to be able to take hits (fair or not, their own making or not) and not be destroyed by it. Let's see how he handles himself over the next month or so before writing him off.

Of course it will play. Hillary can't offer an explanation for her behavior that appeals to women other than social conservatives and doesn't make her look either (a) weak and pathetic or (b) cynical and power-hungry. Because there isn't one; any normal woman with grown children would dump her husband if he acted like that.

Responding that Republicans have cheated on *their* wives misses the point. It isn't the cheating, but the response to it, that makes Hillary look bad. A woman whose husband cheats on her receives pity. A woman whose husband cheats on her, who not only puts up with it but helps cover for him? *That* draws contempt.

People want strong leaders. A person who can't even stand up to a spouse, even when the spouse's behavior is completely beyond the pale, is not strong. People, women included, will choose a man who cheats over a woman who puts up with cheating.

I think Rev is talking about human nature re respect. The man who cheats is a pig, but the women who enables it in exchange for money/power is worse.

The true test of Hillary's campaign will be when yet another woman steps forward again. People will remember all of Bill's sexual harassment, and all of Hillary's smear campaigns against her fellow female Democrats [Jones, Wiley, Lewisnky].

But Hillary's the only Democrat candidate I might trust on foreign policy. I'm curious who her advisors are? Who's in her foreign policy circle re Iraq/Iran/Islam. Who would she appoint to her WH staff?

"The true test of Hillary's campaign will be when yet another woman steps forward again"

I would agree if there's evidence of him cheating on her during the campaign. If it's an old case that's dug up by those suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS) then I don't think that dog will hunt.

Again, the Clintonophobes have already gone so far over the top in denouncing them that most sane people just tune most of it out.

micheal: I would agree if there's evidence of him cheating on her during the campaign.

I think it could be a false accuser and still get play. Clinton doesn't have much credibility when denying such accusations. And it will highlight Hillary's smear operations against Jones, Wiley and Lewisnky.

Again, the Clintonophobes have already gone so far over the top in denouncing them that most sane people just tune most of it out.

You could be right, but I'm thinking the nation will collectively groan and decide they don't want to go through another eight years of that all over again.

Wow. Words of wisdom from Revenant. If you want to know how people (women included!) think, ask Revenant; he has his finger on the pulse of America's "morals" voters.

Something like 90% (I lost the link) of Democrats think Bill Clinton was a good president. Only 57% think Hillary should have stayed with him after the Lewinsky thing. Among the rest of the electorate, support for Hillary's "stand by your man" schtick falls below 50%, and among Republicans it is in the low 30s. So, yeah, I'm right about this. People don't respect Hillary's action. A third of the people lined up to kiss Bill's *ass* don't even think Hillary should have stuck with him, for pity's sake.

As for how voters react to men who cheat, you don't need to look any further than than Bill Clinton himself -- he treated women like toilet paper and defeated faithful husbands in both '92 and '96. He even won the female vote.

Politicians play the "family values" card against unfaithful opponents. Hillary can't play that card simply because she was part of the cover-up of her husband's cheating and most of the electorate knows it. All she can do is play the "I was cheated on, poor poor pitiful me" victim card, and people don't elect victims to be President.

He's starting from his partisan perspective and attributing the same view to everyone else.

The view that women who tolerate cheating are weak and those who ditch their loser husbands are "strong" helps sustain a multi-billion dollar empire ranging from Oprah to Ms. Magazine to half the chick flicks in Hollywood. It doesn't take deep wisdom to notice this, or to notice that women tend to get really catty and judgmental about how other women deal with wayward husbands.

What she needs to do is lock-in a southern/southwest candidate, preferably from a state with a high EC count [Florida].

Has that stunt ever actually helped a candidate win an election?

I believe the last time "geographical ticket-balancing" was thought to have been a factor in an election was 48 years ago with LBJ being Kennedy's VP that gave the Yankee better creds in the South. And, since JFK for some reason became the "Golden Boy" to the whole pack of Democrats that dominated TV and prestige newspaper reporting, we had 30 or so years of them regularly looking for the next Kennedy, the next "perfect ticket balance". Which usually ended in a VP choice that hurt the ticket or didn't help at all...Bentsen didn't "negate" HW Bush's advantage as a Texan. Quayle was a bad balancing choice. Edwards, as Kerry's slick one-term (and hated in NC) Sneator that was to be Kerry's way to "The South" was a disaster.

Funny, because along the way from JFK, after JFK's whacking and Nixon almost leaving Spiro Agnew running the country - the American public started wanting a VP they could see as President 1st and foremost and step in right away if something happened to the President.

That is why HW Bush, Mondale, Lieberman (almost carried 2000 for Gore), Algore (pre-dementia), and pre-disgrace CHeney were good choices. People saw they had the gravitas and experience to run the country. People upset that Clinton picked someone from next-door Tennessee, HW with "weak" Southern links, CHeney from a state with only 3 electoral votes didn't know what they were talking about.

Voters wanted competence.

************************

I notice a lot of the argument here is by "Values" Republicans confident that no Jesus Loving Walmart shopping southern Mom will vote for Hillary because she didn't throw the bastard out.

Well, that would be true if "values" mattered that much, given people want a competent President and VP that will move America in the right direction far more.

We elected a guy who was a famous philanderer before he stopped in his old age, who signed abortion laws, had tons of gay friends - over a moral prig who opposed abortion personally, was blessed with a 100% faithful marriage, asserted he was saved by Jesus and held to all Christian values except a slight lust in his heart - which he said was sin....

Yeah, Reagan and Carter.

I have to say Hillary has impressed me so far, for a Democrat. She is intelligent and well-prepped. And she is best off not going with any of the pack of bozos also running for Prez, including Breck Boy and Empty Suit Barack. (Especially those two as charismatics that will only highlight moments when Hillary is stiff and unnatural as Edwards did in his disservice to soldier-slimer Kerry's chances.)

My guess is Hillary would go for Evan Bayh, Mark Warner (if his scandal rumors aren't valid). A dark horse might be a Hispanic. Richardson hasn't impressed anyone though, and Mayor Villiparosa just had his dick lead him into the perdition that Hillary's "Bimbo Eruption Attack Squad" kept Bill out of.

That would leave Colorado's Senator Salazar as the Hispanic dark horse. A very good choice, IMO. Not as qualified to step in as Warner or Bayh or some General besides old Wesley...

(The Republicans "Hispanic pickin's are slim. The only "name" in a key region is Mel Martinez in Florida - but he is in a continuous battle to show that he, not Barbara Boxer, is the country's stupidest Senator)

In a "hastily called" press conference, hang dog hubby in tow, Hillary repeats, word for word, the very same statement she had made in 1998 following her husband's eventual confession that, yes, indeed, he had had an "improper relationship" with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, and, well, "seminal mistakes have been made:"

"My strong feelings about divorce and its effects on children have caused me to bite my tongue more than a few times during my own marriage and to think instead about what I could do to be a better wife and partner. My husband has done the same... People with children need to ask themselves whether they have given a marriage their best shot and what more they can do to make it work before they call it quits."

And then, the soon-to-be future President of the United States adds the following:

"But Chelsea is no longer a child, and I, more than once, have asked myself whether I've given my marriage my best shot. Quite frankly, I have. And this is the final straw.

The following morning, the headline of the Paper of Record reads, "HILLARY: 'MY LONG MARITAL NIGHTMARE - OVER'"

An entire nation turns its hopeful sympathetic eyes to Hillary as she stands erect (cleavage and all), takes command, divorces the pasty white ass of "that man," wins the election in a landslide and waltzes into the White House January 21, 2009 completely and utterly unencumbered. "I am President; hear me roar."

Only she and Bill will ever know of the deal that had been struck between the two of them during that August woodshed weekend in 1998 on Martha's Vineyard. None but the two of them will ever know exactly the words which were spoken.

Suddenly, the polls show a bounce, a surge, a national stir. Even those Americans suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are aroused and energized. Even those suffering Clinton Derangement Syndrome suddenly love her. Especially those with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

And President Rodham, no longer a "Clinton" and no longer simply "Hillary," goes into the history books as the most uncompromising, decisive, successful war president since Harry S. Truman.

roger: Obama seems to be pretty much an empty suit and has been outcampaign by HRC. And that doesnt include his "Pakistan solution." The longer the campaign lasts, the less attractive he has become and the initial hype wears off. The suit is looking emptier and emptier.

You can keep repeating it, but he doesn't seem very empty to me. The idea that he is "over" at this early stage is just a bunch of bloggers who have been trying to make that happen for quite some time because they fear him and feel pressure to knock Obama down before most voters actually start paying attention.

What I am learning, though, is that a thousand Republicans on the Internet knee-jerked against Obama's Pakistan statements and are apparently now going on record as believing:

1. That Bush's Pakistan solution since 9/11 has been something other than a failure. (The White House's own intelligence assessment disagrees and has declared it a failure, which is why Bush is slowly moving towards Obama's views.)

2. That hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Pakistan shouldn't be conditional on Pakistan making more substantial progress in cleaning up their terrorist problem.

3. That if we have actionable intelligence about high-level terrorists in Pakistan's lawless areas and the dictator sits on his hands about it, we shouldn't act!

4. That the dictator's half-hearted efforts to clean Pakistan up shouldn't be met with strong proddings like Obama just gave them.

I don't actually believe all of you Republicans hold those views. Instead I think you leapt to condemn Obama because you're partisan and have decided to put partisanship above finding better policies to correct the failures of Bush's Pakistan policies. Meanwhile, little has been done to clean Pakistan up, where the perpetrators of 9/11 reside and where much of the terrorism going on in this world seems to be organized and traced back to.

The Republican candidates who stands up and says they'll continue the failed Pakistan policies of Bush will never get my vote.

The Republican candidates who stand up and say they'll continue the failed Pakistan policies of Bush will never get my vote.

And btw a lot of the people calling him a lightweight on foreign affairs around here have been wrong way more often than he has. I was wrong about a lot of stuff, too. I just am willing to admit it and started listening to different people than I had been.

LoafingOaf said..."The idea that [Obama] is 'over' at this early stage is just a bunch of bloggers who have been trying to make that happen for quite some time because they fear him and feel pressure to knock [him] down before most voters actually start paying attention."

Early stage? He's been campaigning hard for six months. Just because the election is still over a year off doesn't make this "early".

He's done the public appearances, he's done the televised debates, he's butted heads with the leading Democratic contender... and it just isn't working. His poll numbers are moving in the wrong direction; he's down five points from his peak four months ago. Hillary's up ten points from four months ago.

Its over, and it isn't just bloggers saying that. If the candidate was anyone other than Hillary, Barack could hope for a scandal to knock her off her perch. But the Clintons have been through so many scandals that I just can't imagine one that would make a dent in the public psyche at this point.

It's hard to find anything to like or agree with in your post since most of it is uninformed and illogical. Let me point out the lowlights and then I'll move on.

As for how voters react to men who cheat, you don't need to look any further than than Bill Clinton himself -- he treated women like toilet paper and defeated faithful husbands in both '92 and '96. He even won the female vote.

Clinton ran against Bush in '92 and Dole in '96. Both opponents have been accused of extramarital affairs, a point you seem to have conveniently forgotten. Unless you have evidence that has been withheld from the rest of the world, the "faithfulness" of Bush and Dole is an open question.

You also imply that voters (including women!) cast their votes based on judgments about the marital fidelity of the candidates. There is no evidence that this is true. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to indicate that it isn't true.

Something like 90% (I lost the link) of Democrats think Bill Clinton was a good president. Only 57% think Hillary should have stayed with him after the Lewinsky thing. Among the rest of the electorate, support for Hillary's "stand by your man" schtick falls below 50%, and among Republicans it is in the low 30s. So, yeah, I'm right about this. People don't respect Hillary's action.

This claim is a mess. First, you cite a poll that you can't reference, and then you compound this problem by posting poll numbers which may or not be accurate. Very poor.

If you look at the Time magazine poll from last year (July, 2006; it's available online!) you'll see the following results when people were asked about the Clinton marriage:

THINKING BACK TO BILL CLINTON'S AFFAIR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, DO YOU THINK HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE DIVORCED BILL CLINTON WHEN HE ADMITTED HIS AFFAIR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY? =========== SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM 24%SHOULD NOT HAVE DIVORCED HIM 44%NO ANSWER/DON'T KNOW/ 32%

This result doesn't square with the results you cite. I guess that means you're wrong.

Here's another poll question:

WHAT IF BILL CLINTON AND HILLARY CLINTON WERE TO DIVORCE? WOULD THAT MAKE YOU MORE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, LESS LIKELY, OR HAVE NO EFFECT ON YOUR VOTE IF HILLARY RAN FOR PRESIDENT? =========== MORE LIKELY 6%LESS LIKELY 9% NO EFFECT 84% NO ANSWER/DON'T KNOW 2%

This undercuts your argument. You say "people don't respect Hillary's action." That may be true (although you've provided no evidence of such), but the poll suggest otherwise. It appears that, as a practical matter, "people" (including women!) don't care about Hillary Clinton's decision to stay with her husband. Again, you seem to be wrong.

Politicians play the "family values" card against unfaithful opponents.

Republican politicians play the "family values" card, and as we've seen recently in the case of Vitter, the GOP politicians who push "family values" are some of the biggest hypocrites around.

Hillary can't play that card...

I don't see any reason to expect that Hillary Clinton will pander to the "family values" crowd.

All she can do is play the "I was cheated on, poor poor pitiful me" victim card, and people don't elect victims to be President.

I don't pretend to know who "people" (including women!) will elect. In 2000, who would have guessed that "people" (including women!) would elect a failed businessman to be President? (To be fair to the "people," the runner-up had more votes than the winner.) In 2004, who would have guessed that "people" (including women!) would re-elect a miserably incompetent bumbler? On that basis, I have no idea if America would elect a "victim," although I suspect Hillary Clinton has no intention of playing the role of victim.

In any case, Revenant, you're now arguing a different (wrong) point than the one on which I originally challenged you. Either way, if you're going to try to support your claims, bring some evidence to the debate next time.

"In 2000, who would have guessed that "people" (including women!) would elect a failed businessman to be President?"

With such careful framing, Cyrus has read Lakoff. ;) Sure, if that was all Bush was. But most people assessed him as a born-again Christian whose faith had lifted his life out of failure and who had gone on to be a reasonably succesful governor in Texas.

Clinton ran against Bush in '92 and Dole in '96. Both opponents have been accused of extramarital affairs, a point you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

I said that both men were faithful husbands, not that they had never had unsubstantiated slanders leveled at them by Democrats. Please pay attention.

Unless you have evidence that has been withheld from the rest of the world, the "faithfulness" of Bush and Dole is an open question.

Only in the sense that it is an open question whether or not you are Osama bin Laden posting under an alias. The point is that there's no rational reason to believe it. Obviously people who want to believe Bush or Dole cheated on their wives are welcome to believe it despite there being no evidence of it, but we're talking about the average voter here. Clinton was an acknowledged serial cheater with a paid staff tasked with containing "bimbo eruptions". His opponents, like Kerry in 2004, were just the targets of unsubstantiated rumors. The two things are not equivalent.

You also imply that voters (including women!) cast their votes based on judgments about the marital fidelity of the candidates.

No, dumbass, I said that voters usually don't care. That's why I pointed out that a cheating husband beat a faithful once in 1992 and 1996.

First, you cite a poll that you can't reference

What, you're going to whine about a claim that Clinton has 90% approval among Democrats? Fine, I retract the claim. I apologize for saying, without any hard evidence, that the overwhelming majority of Democrats think Bill Clinton did a good job.

This result doesn't square with the results you cite. I guess that means you're wrong.

I said that "among the rest of the electorate, support for Hillary's 'stand by your man' schtick falls below 50%". You respond with a poll showing that less than half of Americans thought it was a bad idea for Hillary to divorce her husband. Are you retarded? You just proved my point.

Oh, and before you whine something about how only 24% of voters responded that they favored divorce -- I never said polls showed that the majority favored Hillary divorcing her husband. I said (after looking at the very poll you just cited, by the way) that less than half favored them staying married. That leaves the majority either believing that Hillary did the wrong thing or open to being convinced that she did the wrong thing. That's where Republican operatives have room to score points.

Republican politicians play the "family values" card, and as we've seen recently in the case of Vitter, the GOP politicians who push "family values" are some of the biggest hypocrites around.

Yeah, and Democrats bleat about the poor while winging around in private jets and limos. I was observing that politicians behave a certain way, little brain -- not praising it. I am not a "values voter", as anyone who pays attention would know.

I don't see any reason to expect that Hillary Clinton will pander to the "family values" crowd.

If you think Clinton won't try scoring political points off the fact that her opponent is a twice-divorced man who dumped his last wife at a press conference, you're even dumber than I thought.

In 2000, who would have guessed that "people" (including women!) would elect a failed businessman to be President?

Me. And no, I wasn't a supporter -- but Gore had zero charisma and routinely polled behind Bush. The big surprise to me (and to almost everyone else) was that Gore actually won the popular vote.

Oh, and women picked Gore over Bush 53% to 44%, by the way.

In 2004, who would have guessed that "people" (including women!) would re-elect a miserably incompetent bumbler?

Just about anyone outside of the leftie echo chamber knew Bush had a good shot at winning reelection once John Kerry became the apparent Democratic nominee. Your problem has always been that you think "Bush sucks" a is good enough campaign slogan.

I suspect Hillary Clinton has no intention of playing the role of victim

I don't think she will either. That's why, like I patiently spelled out, I think she'll be stuck with her weak "I made a choice to stay married" defense against the Republican whispering campaign.

Bill would probably be all "I love it when you're angry," leading to her own tryst (with him) in the Oval Office?

Glad you enjoyed it, Pat. Yes, the Oval (egg-shaped) Office. Kinky stuff. Especially when, the following day, he sends her a little gift - a slender book of poetry by one of America's great poets.

And President Rodham reciprocates by emailing him (in her own fluid keyboard typing) part 5 from I Sing the Body Electric:

This is the female form,A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction, I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it, Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear'd of hell, are now consumed,Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious nice,Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,Undulating into the willing and yielding day,Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh'd day.

This the nucleus--after the child is born of woman, man is born of woman,This the bath of birth, this the merge of small and large, and the outlet again.

Be not ashamed women, your privilege encloses the rest, and is the exit of the rest,You are the gates of the body, and you are the gates of the soul.

The female contains all qualities and tempers them,She is in her place and moves with perfect balance,She is all things duly veil'd, she is both passive and active,She is to conceive daughters as well as sons, and sons as well as daughters.

As I see my soul reflected in Nature,As I see through a mist, One with inexpressible completeness, sanity, beauty,See the bent head and arms folded over the breast, the Female I see.---------------------------------------Attached is a VERY personal note from Hillary to Bill, a quote she once heard many years ago, the source long forgotten:

My darling Bill, "Whitman is so rich that one must read him like one tastes a fine wine or a good cigar -- take it, roll it in your mouth and savor it!

Apparently you are a lot dumber than I thought. I have to say, that's a scary thought.

Here's your claim that I attempted to address by looking at a (referenced) poll:

People don't respect Hillary's action.

What does the poll show?

THINKING BACK TO BILL CLINTON'S AFFAIR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT, DO YOU THINK HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE DIVORCED BILL CLINTON WHEN HE ADMITTED HIS AFFAIR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY? =========== SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM 24%SHOULD NOT HAVE DIVORCED HIM 44%NO ANSWER/DON'T KNOW/ 32%

So, the number of respondents who AGREED with Hillary Clinton's decision is roughly TWICE that of those who disagreed with her decision. On this basis you insist that "people don't respect Hillary's action." And you call me "little brain?" Yet you claim this polling evidence "proves" your point. And you call me "dumbass?"

But wait, the stupidity doesn't come in small doses:

Democrats bleat about the poor while winging around in private jets and limos.

Yeah, those Democratic candidates ought to stick to campaign travel by bus! [eyeroll] Are you really stupid enough to believe that a candidate can't be concerned about the poor if he uses the most time-efficient method of travel?

Is it possible for you to make a dumber observation? The answer, sadly is yes:

If you think Clinton won't try scoring political points off the fact that her opponent is a twice-divorced man who dumped his last wife at a press conference, you're even dumber than I thought.

Wow, which of her Democratic opponents is a "twice-divorced man who dumped his last wife at a press conference?" The only person I've heard of who is that sleazy is Rudy Giuliani, but of course, he's not running for the Democratic nomination, nor has he won the Republican nomination. So who is this mystery opponent of Hillary Clinton you're babbling about?

Any other brilliant observations, Revenant?

Your problem has always been that you think "Bush sucks" a is good enough campaign slogan.

No. My "problem" is that I consistently overestimate the intelligence of the American electorate. Apparently they think a lot like you do. And as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, that's a scary thought.

Revenant, I invite you to prove your assertion that both men were faithful.

You're asking him to prove a negative...

In this regard, please remember that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

...drawing false equivalence to the WMD "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Won't wash, but since you brough it up:

The Left insists Iraq didn't have WMDs, based on reports of two inspection regimes clearing Saddam.Yet somehow, these inspectors missed 500 arty shells containing sarin & mustard gas... [we can ignore any debate about whether such weapons would be effective for now]. How do you reconcile that?

***

Agent Cyrus: "We've cleared the suspect's house. No drugs were found"

Agent Fen: "What about these 150 marijuana plants in the basement, another 150 in the attic, yet another 150 behind the spare bedroom, and 50 in the garage?

Agent Cyrus: "Lemme see em...no, some haven't pollinated, and the rest are shriveled up and dead. I stand by my previous statement: no drugs here."

Agent Fen: "Maybe, but how can you claim to have searched the house when you missed 500 mj plants?

Oh, I got your post. Your postings assert that an allegation is presumptively valid unless affirmatively rebutted by proof. Revenant's point is that an allegation must be supported by evidence establishing it before it can be considered true. He is correct, you are wrong - embarassingly so - and with logic like that, you're a heartbeat away from being a 9/11 truther.

LOL! No, dude, you're the one misrepresenting him, as usual. I had his speech on my screen when I typed my message and paraphrased straight from it. You probably should read his speech to know what he actually said, and not all those partisan bloggers who lie about everything.

1) Obama called for an invasion of Pakistan, full-scale like Iraq, which would give them cause to declare war on us. Do you want to see a nuclear exchange between India and Paksitan?

No he didn't. That was a misrepresentation in the media. Click on the speech above and discover how you've been lied to.

And here's an article about Obama's response to the misrepresentations you were misled by.

And here's an article about Howard Kurtz's reply to Obama's response to the misrepresentations, where Kurtz claimed: ""I sure didn't see anyone reporting that Obama wanted to invade Pakistan.... I read that he would be willing to conduct raids against al-Qaeda without necessarily getting permission from Pakistan's sovereign government." The article goes on to show that the media did, in fact, misreport Obama's speech, which you, Fen, were a victim of.

Congratulations for Hillary getting a bump in the polls against Obama after the Obama's comments on foreign policy were lied about. I know it's gonna be hard for someone like Obama to make it with all the bullshit flying in our national politics. It would be nice if the political blogoshere were more interested in the truth rather than advancing the lies. They certainly don't deserve anything better than Clinton vs Romney, but some of us want and deserve a better class of candidates.

2) Conservatives support SpecOp teams hunting down OBL in Waziristan, with cooperation from Paki government.

Yeah, I know that. I posted a comment about that in the previous thread about Obama and Pakistan on this blog. That's why I said Bush's policy has been changing lately, and moving in Obama's direction.

See, this is the whole problem. It will have to be a whispering campaign which means it would mostly reach those who mostly already hate Hillary.

I can't foresee any way for this (whatever you want to call it, it's certainly not an issue). To make it into the public where the middle of the road voters (who are the ones who put people into the whitehouse) will be swayed by it. If anything, I think it could work for her by making so many of her strongest opponents look unhinged.

Wrong! I've stated the opposite, in fact. Revenant alleges that Bush and Dole have been faithful husbands. Where do I suggest that this allegation is valid unless rebutted by proof? Clearly you didn't understand the substance of our exchange.

Revenant's point is that an allegation must be supported by evidence establishing it before it can be considered true.

Wrong, and embarrassingly so! Revenant makes an allegation that he wants accepted as fact even though he can't provide supporting evidence. In response, I've said essentially what you say here (i.e, "that an allegation must be supported by evidence establishing it before it can be considered true.) Somehow after reading my posts and claiming to understand them, you've shown you didn't understand them at all. Very poor and very sad.

He is correct, you are wrong - embarassingly so - and with logic like that, you're a heartbeat away from being a 9/11 truther.

No, I'm not. Revenant asserts that Dole and Bush 41 have been faithful husbands. I've asked him to prove this assertion, knowing that he cannot. I wish all Althouse readers would read a little more carefully (which might require removing partisan blinders) before responding to comments.

BTW, since you mention it, I wish people would stop claiming "you can't prove a negative" as if negatives cannot be proven. For example, I am happy to provide a proof of the following negative:

If x is an even integer, (x-1) is not an even integer.

It is possible to proof negatives.

...drawing false equivalence to the WMD "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Won't wash, but since you brough it up:

The Left insists Iraq didn't have WMDs, based on reports of two inspection regimes clearing Saddam.Yet somehow, these inspectors missed 500 arty shells containing sarin & mustard gas... [we can ignore any debate about whether such weapons would be effective for now]. How do you reconcile that?

Boy, what an out-of-left-field comment, Fen. I'm not drawing any equivalence to questions of WMD in Iraq. Frankly it never occurred to me, as it has absolutely no relevance to the topic being discussed here. And for the record, the notion that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" originates from philosophy of science and relates to the logical fallacy termed Argument from Ignorance.

Since I'm not "of the Left," I don't know what "the Left" insisted about Iraq, and therefore you should get a defense of whatever you think "the Left" claimed from "the Left." However, it's clear from your example that you've misunderstood the application of "argument from ignorance" as it applies to inspection reports.

As I recall, none of the inspection reports concluded that Iraq had been cleared of all possible WMD. As I recall, the recommendations that came from the reports was that inspections continue (i.e., that inspection teams continue looking for evidence of WMD and WMD programs). In no way does this suggest that inspectors had concluded, based on an absence of evidence, that Iraq had an absence of WMD or WMD related activities. On that basis I see nothing to reconcile.

Also, as we both know, the chemical agent in any of the shells from the time period you're referring to would have degraded. The administration consistently grossly overstated the threat from these old (unaccounted for) shells.

Fen, I don't know what the "Agent Cyrus" and "Agent Fen" stuff is all about, but whatever it is you're smoking, I must be good shit.

Simon has already demolished your argument about Bush and Dole, so I'll leave the last word on that subject to him. If it makes you feel better, though, you can replace the passage that has you all flustered:

defeated faithful husbands in both '92 and '96.

with this:

defeated two men whom the majority of Americans believed to be faithful to their wives, and against whom no substantiated charges of infidelity had ever been leveled

The point remains -- a person Americans thought cheated on his wife defeated two people they thought *didn't* cheat on their wives. Considering that you've already agreed with my original point that voters don't care all that much about candidates who cheat on their wives I can't for the life of me why you're arguing *against* the claim that voters ignored issues of marital fidelity in the 1990s elections.

So, the number of respondents who AGREED with Hillary Clinton's decision is roughly TWICE that of those who disagreed with her decision.

My statement was that less than half of Americans agreed with Clinton. The percentage that agreed with her, 44%, is less than half, ergo I am right and you are wrong. The fact (which I already noted) that only 24% explicitly favored divorce is irrelevant, as I never said the majority of Americans thought Hillary should have divorced Bill.

And you call me "dumbass?"

You think 44 is greater than 50, so... yep, pretty much.

Wow, which of her Democratic opponents is a "twice-divorced man who dumped his last wife at a press conference?"

Let's see... the post you responded to was about the tactics and counter-tactics Republicans and Hillary will you against each other in the Presidential race... I didn't put the word "Democratic" in front of opponent or refer to the Democratic nomination (except to say that Hillary's got it in the bag)... and the Republican front-runner exactly matches the description I gave.

This exchange follows a familiar pattern in which you misread one of my posts and respond foolishly. Then, when your error is pointed out to you, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your error and depart with an insulting remark.

Do I find your proclivity for this type of behavior annoying? Frankly, yes, it seems remarkably childish. Do I hold a grudge? No, not at all. And if somehow, in some small way you get something you need by calling me a name (e.g., "clot"), it's not a big deal to me.

But please, if you will, try to learn something from this exchange. If you believe I'm "not worth the time of day," stop responding to my comments. On the other hand, if you feel you must respond, take the time to read my posts carefully so that I don't have to spend my time correcting your mistakes.

Cyrus, you really are a complete waste of time, and I can scarcely believe you need this explained to you - your casting of Rev's statement that neither bush nor Dole cheated on their wives as an "assertion" for which he must provide proof is a passive-agressive way of asserting the contrary. Not only is it ludicrous on its face, something readily apparent to everyone (including yourself, it you were honest about it) but makes yet clearer that you're a coward. Instead of directly asserting that you think they're cheaters, you intimate the same thing indirectly by suggesting that a suggestion to the contrary is an assertion that you need proof in order to agree to.

Ahahahaha! Please, Revenant, sign yourself up for an introductory course in logic, and take Simon with you.

I can't believe that either of you are so stupid (or dishonest) to try to insist that I made the allegation that needs to be supported with evidence. The allegation is yours, not mine. Again, you allege that Bush and Dole are faithful husbands. I've stated that, lacking evidence, it's an open question. This is a painfully obvious point of basic logic that you and Simon have managed to botch.

...two men whom the majority of Americans believed to be faithful to their wives ...

Can you provide evidence to support this contention? Clearly you've learned nothing from your previous mistake, as you again assert something which I suspect you cannot prove.

My statement was that less than half of Americans agreed with Clinton. The percentage that agreed with her, 44%, is less than half, ergo I am right and you are wrong.

Nope. I never made any assertion about the percentage of Americans who agreed with Hillary Clinton's decision. Therefore there is nothing here that I was wrong about. Also, I did not challenge your claim that the percentage of Americans who agreed with her decision was less than half. Clearly you don't read well.

The fact (which I already noted) that only 24% explicitly favored divorce is irrelevant, as I never said the majority of Americans thought Hillary should have divorced Bill.

Well, no, actually I noted that result. In fact, what you posted specifically did suggest that a majority of the American electorate thought Hillary Clinton should divorce her husband. That's why, immediately after claiming that a poll showed that less than half of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton's decision, you wrote this:

People don't respect Hillary's action.

If you weren't suggesting "the majority of Americans thought Hillary should have divorced Bill," what is the origin of your claim? What is the evidence on which it is based? Think, Revenant, think.

Further evidence of your dishonesty on this point can be found in this statement of yours, again immediately following your polling report claims:

A third of the people lined up to kiss Bill's *ass* don't even think Hillary should have stuck with him, for pity's sake.

A third? You do realize that "a third" corresponds to 33%, right? Where does that figure come from? I know exactly how you "calculated" it, and the "logic" you applied in reaching that (wrong) conclusion is precisely the same "logic" that led you to wrongly imply that a majority of Americans disagreed with Hillary Clinton's decision.

In summary, you DID imply that a majority of Americans disagreed with Hillary Clinton's decision. You were wrong about that fact then and you're lying about your claim now. Very pathetic.

You think 44 is greater than 50

Again, I never claimed this. But it's typical of the Revenant debate style. You claim X, and when challenged on X, you provide evidence to support Y. When caught in this silly game, you then try to lie about the fact that Y is not X. In this case you've added some strawman elements to try to create a diversion to provide cover during your retreat. Very pathetic.

I'm pretty sure everyone *except* you knows who I was referring to.

Yeah, I agree, identifying Giuliani as Clinton's opponent was enormously stupid. "Potential opponent" would have been a smarter choice of words. It's a good thing I'm around to correct your numerous errors.

I'm amused at the contrast between that statement and your earlier sarcastic mockery of the idea that I might have insight into how people are going to vote.

I mocked your claim that you know how Americans (including women!) think. The fact that you vote in the same way as many Americans is not the same as having "insight." I don't think behavioral ecologists credit lemmings with "insight."

Which is just an egotistical way of saying you suck at guessing how people will vote.

No, it's just an honest admission that I'm disappointed with the lack of intelligence I see from the American electorate.

I've been right about every Presidential election since 1984.

Hey, Revenant, congratulations! I'm glad that every four years you're finally right about something.

Fen. I'm not drawing any equivalence to questions of WMD in Iraq. Frankly it never occurred to me, as it has absolutely no relevance to the topic being discussed here.

You brought it up in a political context. The most recent and public use of it was from Sec Defense. It's one of the points Rev has made re WMD, and you sought to reverse it against him.

[origins of the term

It has an origin. Thats nice. Lets all pretend you were referencing from that, not reversing a standard argument you've constantly heard from the Right on this very blog.

Since I'm not "of the Left,"

Fine, lets also pretend you're not of the Left. Lets ignore that all of your debates here have been against the Right, and in support of the Left. Lets pretend you're an objective non-partisan centrist...

I don't know what "the Left" insisted about Iraq

...who's never heard the Left's arguments re WMD in Iraq....

In no way does this suggest that inspectors had concluded, based on an absence of evidence, that Iraq had an absence of WMD or WMD related activities.

But thats what the Left concluded. You claim to disagree with their illogic, yet this is the first I've ever heard about. Countless WMD debates on this blog and you failed to make such an argument...

Also, as we both know, the chemical agent in any of the shells from the time period you're referring to would have degraded.

The Sulfur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity. It is possible that viable filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq

According to the CIA, nations such as Iraq have tried to overcome the problem of sarin's short shelf life in two ways: The shelf life of unitary (i.e., pure) sarin may be lengthened by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediate chemicals and refining the production process.

Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same Shell (projectile)|shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions

But all thats beside the point - the point is that inspection regimes are inadequate to the task of "proving" a nation is WMD-free. Two inspection regimes missed 500 chemical arty shells scattered throughout Iraq. And the Left insisted this was "evidence of absence".

"The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid."

Obama: If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

But we're both linking to contradictory statements on the same website - Obama's. Do you see why there's confusion? If he's been misreprented, then he needs to take those misrepresentations down from his own website.

So you said in your last post, but here you are responding to me again. As you know, actions speak louder than words...

...your casting of Rev's statement that neither bush nor Dole cheated on their wives as an "assertion"...

Huh? That's not an assertion? Of course it's an assertion. Do you understand what an assertion is, Simon? On what basis does that statement not qualify as an assertion? Please answer directly and precisely; it would be a nice change.

... for which he must provide proof is a passive-agressive way of asserting the contrary.

No, Simon. You've fallen into the same logical trap as before. I've stated quite clearly several times that the marital fidelity of Bush and Dole is an open question. I'm not asserting the contrary; you make a serious logical error in reaching that conclusion. (It also shows that you don't read well.) You do understand the concept of an "open question," right?

Not only is it ludicrous on its face, something readily apparent to everyone (including yourself, it you were honest about it) but makes yet clearer that you're a coward.

Clearly you don't understand logical principles. This failing on your part does not serve you well. And as far as the coward remark is concerned, I again attribute this to some need you have for reinforcing your fragile self-esteem.

Instead of directly asserting that you think they're cheaters, you intimate the same thing indirectly by suggesting that a suggestion to the contrary is an assertion that you need proof in order to agree to.

Simon, this is just plainly stupid. I've said repeatedly that the marital fidelity of Bush and Dole is an open question (i.e., no judgment passed as far as I'm concerned). In any case, as a practical matter, if you'd read (and understood) my comments in context, you'd realize that some people DO question the marital fidelity of Bush and Dole. People have written about it. Can't you understand that if some people question the marital fidelity of Bush and Dole, then Revenant's suggestion to the contrary is wrong?

Tsk, tsk, Simon. That's no way to talk to any of your fellow commenters.

Although I don't pretend to speak for Althouse, I do believe she discourages commenters from attempting to silence or drive away other commenters. You wouldn't want to displease Althouse, would you Simon?

Simon, I think you take yourself far too seriously. I don't know if this helps or not, but with each new post from you, I take you less seriously. So, if you're an optimist, you have nowhere to go but up in my opinion! Good luck with that.

You've mistaken me for more than a casual Althouse commenter. I started reading and commenting here in late spring of this year, I think. I was away for almost all of June and aside from a very few threads in which I post numerous comments, I rarely comment. So the notion that I've been hanging around Althouse for ages and keeping up with arguments between left and right about WMD is just plain wrong.

Since I don't know what most of you mean when you refer to "the Left" (and since the definition of "the Left" is constantly changing to accomodate whatever opinion is being referred to), I don't know how I would attribute a particular argument about WMD to "the Left." Sorry, but I have to plead ignorance on this point. Also, I'm not particularly interested in the "Left" and "Right" labels since it instantly sends up a signal of partisanship. Not that either major political party would want me, but both have done an impressive job of sickening me on what they have to offer.

You also note that I generally argue against the prevailing opinion here. That's true on whatever blogs I decide to post. That's why I've been discouraged from commenting at two liberal blogs; my contributions vanish soon after posting.

I wouldn't describe myself as "left," "right" or "center." My political opinions don't map nicely into one dimension.

I don't mind taking abuse for my unpopular opinions. Commenters like you and Roger are great because you argue your positions forcefully without personalizing disagreements. And I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I take some pleasure in needling the good sports around here.

So, to the substantive points you made...

1. I don't recall ever seeing Revenant's comments about WMD. Perhaps I read them but don't remember; more likely I never saw them. My apologies to Revenant if my use of the phrase "absence of evidence..." suggested anything other than the standard meaning.

2. The chemical agent in the 500 weapons munitions that you refer to was found to be no longer active. This is completely consistent with what we already knew about the design of the shells. Although it is possible that shells can be designed differently to extend the viability of the chemical agent, we had very good reason to believe that the 500 missing shells were not designed in this way. On this narrow point of design, we have been shown to be absolutely correct.

3. You argue that inspection regimes are inadequate, but what is the alternative? As we knew prior to the invasion, the inspection regimes had worked remarkably well, although not perfectly. As we know now, the inspection regimes had worked remarkably well, although not perfectly. What is the cost-effective, security-effective and foreign policy-effective alternative that will provide perfect results? Certainly the path we've taken is nothing of the sort.

You have, as is your M.O., responded to the destruction of your argument by attacking straw men. I'll leave you to it, and confine my response to the small portion of your post that was responsive:

Can you provide evidence to support [the contention that most people thought Dole and Bush were faithful]?

I tell you what -- provide primary sources for your claim that they were accused of infidelity and I'll think about it.

Yeah, I agree, identifying Giuliani as Clinton's opponent was enormously stupid. "Potential opponent" would have been a smarter choice of words.

The only person who was confused by what I said was you. That Hillary Clinton's opponent in the 2008 Presidential race currently exists only in potentia goes without saying.

I mocked your claim that you know how Americans (including women!) think.

And followed that up by saying they're idiots who think like me. That's what I thought was amusing. I particularly like the "including women!" you keep using, as if women were some strange alien race whose minds cannot be understood by normal people.

The fact that you vote in the same way as many Americans is not the same as having "insight."

If most people vote like me, and I know how I will vote, then I have insight into how most people will vote. QED.

Of course, you didn't actually mean to say that most people vote like me; you just wanted to score points against both myself and the majority of the population who voted for Bush, and (as usual) accidentally scored an own goal in the process.

No, it's just an honest admission that I'm disappointed with the lack of intelligence I see from the American electorate.

If you predicted the outcomes of the 2000 and 2004 elections, asking "who would have guessed Bush would win" was pretty stupid.

If you didn't, then -- especially considering that Bush led in the polls for virtually all of 2000 and for the last few months of 2004 -- the inescapable conclusion is that you aren't very good at figuring out who is going to win the Presidential race.

Which is hardly surprising, given that you can't even make your way through a blog comment without getting hopelessly confused and accidentally arguing against both sides simultaneously.

You have, as is your M.O., responded to the destruction of your argument by attacking straw men.

Uh huh, Revenant. Are you really as stupid as you're pretending to be? Or is this simply more lying to create a diversion to cover your ass as you scurry away?

If my argument has been destroyed, as you laughably claim, why have you specifically avoided addressing one of the central questions regarding your assertion that "People don't respect Hillary's action?" You base this assertion on poll results which show otherwise. Show a litte courage, Revenant, and address this point. I suspect you can't, and that's the reason you're having one last squawk before retreating.

I tell you what -- provide primary sources for your claim that they were accused of infidelity and I'll think about it.

You'll think about it? Are you sure you want to do that? You've never shown any inclination to think before this, so why promise to start now?

Anyway, this is just too good a deal to refuse: I provide you with sources and you think. Wow!

Okay, here are a few sources that you can refer to for background reading:

The only person who was confused by what I said was you. That Hillary Clinton's opponent in the 2008 Presidential race currently exists only in potentia goes without saying.

Oh, I wasn't at all confused, as my response clearly shows (I specifically mention Giuliani and note that he isn't Hillary Clinton's opponent at this point in time). I was ridiculing you for your stupidity. The fact that you now want to claim I was "confused" shows the extent to which you will distort and fabricate in order to cover yourself. It's a shame that you so readily sacrifice whatever integrity you have left to try to conceal the idiocy of your errors.

And followed that up by saying they're idiots who think like me. That's what I thought was amusing. I particularly like the "including women!" you keep using, as if women were some strange alien race whose minds cannot be understood by normal people.

Again, you're misrepresenting what I've said. My repeated use of the phrase "people (including women!)" is obviously mocking your use of this expression in your original post on this subject. Here's what you wrote, and here is a link to the first use of this silly phrase (by you, Revenant):

People, women included, will choose a man who cheats over a woman who puts up with cheating.

Those are YOUR words, Revenant, not mine. Somehow you've missed the fact that I've been mocking you ever since you made that profoundly dumb remark. But now you've suddenly decided to ridicule your own remark. You can't imagine the joy I take in seeing you ignorantly slamming yourself.

Now let's see an example of your inattention to important details and your general dishonesty as a commenter ...

I wrote: The fact that you vote in the same way as many Americans is not the same as having "insight."

In response, you write this:

If most people vote like me...

Whoa, hold on there! "Most people"? If you're responding to my comment, don't you mean "many people," as I wrote? Or do you not know the difference? Do you understand that there is a difference between these two phrases:

1. Many Americans voted for George Bush in 2000.2. Most Americans voted for George Bush in 2000.

You see, statement 1 is true; over 50 million people voted for the incompetent boob. On the other hand, statement 2 is false; more Americans voted for Gore than Bush, and still more Americans didn't vote at all. In conclusion, "most" and "many" are not synonyms and your exchange of one for the other indicates either carelessness (which characterizes much of your commenting) or dishonesty.

You continue by writing this:

...and I know how I will vote, then I have insight into how most people will vote. QED.

This is laughably foolish. For example, you may salivate uncontrollably when you see deep fried pork rinds, and many other Americans may do the same, but that doesn't imply that you understand why you and other Americans have this response. "Insight" implies a basic understanding which I see no evidence of in your posts. When you scarf down a whole bag of pork rinds, you probably know that this will result in the squirts, but that doesn't mean you have insight into the biochemical processes that cause this conversion. The extent of your "insight" into this scenario is that, in the end, you're full of crap.

Then you follow up with more classic "blooper Revenant:"

Of course, you didn't actually mean to say that most people vote like me; you just wanted to score points against both myself and the majority of the population who voted for Bush

The majority of the population did NOT vote for Bush. Why is it that you consistently make assertions that are factually incorrect? (Hint: Less than 42.5% of the US population even voted in the 2004 presidential election. You do the math.)

and (as usual) accidentally scored an own goal in the process.

Ahahaha! Getting you to admit that you voted for President Incompetent is never an own goal. I'm glad you're willing to stand up and take responsibility for the mess you've helped to create.

If you predicted the outcomes of the 2000 and 2004 elections, asking "who would have guessed Bush would win" was pretty stupid.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a rhetorical question. And given the inability to learn that you've displayed here, I'm not going to try to explain it to you.

If you didn't, then -- especially considering that Bush led in the polls for virtually all of 2000 and for the last few months of 2004 -- the inescapable conclusion is that you aren't very good at figuring out who is going to win the Presidential race.

There's a great difference between confusion and disbelief. Having witnessed the idiocy of electing Bush in 2000, I had hoped that Americans would have learned from their mistake. In 2004 they repeated that mistake. While I acknowledge the capacity of Americans to make stupid choices, I am always a bit surprised when they fail to learn from mistakes. In any case, both elections were extremely close, and I have little to no interest in handicapping elections. (Part of the problem with MSM presidential election coverage is that it is based on the "horse race" aspects of the campaign rather than on a close examination of the candidates in order to help voters choose the person who is most likely to deliver good government. However, that's a different subject for a different audience.)

So Revenant, although you've tried to change the topic many times over, do you have the courage to respond to the question I posed in my last comment? Here it is again:

After claiming that a poll showed that less than half of Americans agreed with Hillary Clinton's decision, you wrote this:

People don't respect Hillary's action.

If you weren't suggesting "the majority of Americans thought Hillary should have divorced Bill," what is the origin of your claim? What is the evidence on which it is based?

The fact that you've ignored this question so far leads me to suspect you'll ignore it again. However, because I'm a very patient and generous person, I'm giving you another chance to address it directly. Good luck.